The starting point of limitation for filing an appeal against the final list of protected tenants is the date of publication of the final list as per Rule 4 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) protected tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition raises a question of limitation under section 91 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") read with Sec. 93 of the Act and Rule 4 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh ( Telangana Area) protected tenants (Transfer of Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973, for short "the rules".

( 2 ) THE petitioner before me is the landholder while respondents 2 and 3 claim to be protected tenants, each in respect of 30 guntas of land. The revenue Divisional Officer passed orders with regard to the final list of protected tenants to whom ownership of land is transferred under Sec. 38-E of the Act on 31-3-1975. Before the preparation of said final list, the Revenue divisional Officer issued notices under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules calling for objections from the landholders. There is no dispute before me that the provisional list of protected tenants to whom ownership of land was to be transferred was prepared under Rule 4 (1) of the Rules in Form-I on 18-11-74. Thereafter Rule 4 (2) of the Rules requires that a copy of the provisional list should be published by affixture on notice board of the village chavadi or at any other conspicuous place in the village and by beat of torn tom. The question whether this part of the Rule was complied with or not is a matter which does not arise in this revision but will be a matter which has to be decided by the appellate authority in the event of the petitioner satisfying me that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the appeal was barred by time.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 91 of the Act, a revision lies to the High Court against an order passed by the appellate authority. Section 91 of the Act, however, provides that an application for revision shall lie to the High Court from any final order passed on appeal by the Collector on the following grounds: (a) that the original or appellate authority exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) that the original or appellate authority failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or, (c) in following the procedure or passing the order, the original or appellate authority acted illegally or with material irregularity. Section 93 of the Act provides :"every appeal and every application for revision under this Act shall be filed within sixty days from the date of the order against which the appeal or application is filed. . . . ". By Act 2 of 1979 Section 93 has been amended so as to enable the Court to apply the provisions of Sections 5 and 12 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. But for the amendment, it has been held that there is no power in the Courts to invoke the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It has also been held that the amendment is prospective and not retrospective vide decision in sakuru vs. Tanaji AIR 1985 S. C. , 1279 that even though the petitioner filed the appeal in the appellate Court on 7-8-84 against the orders of the revenue divisional Officer, dated 31-3-1975 preparing a final list of protected tenants entitled to ownership, limitation will not commence against the revision petitioner unless it is established that the conditions precedent for the commencement of limitation are established. In other words, he contends that unless there is proof that the limitation has started, there is no question of computing the period of sixty days and for contending that an appeal filed beyond the period of sixty days is not maintainable particularly because the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were not available at the time when the final list was prepared on 31-3-1975. According to the learned counsel, Rule 4 (3) requires that the final list is to be published by affixture of copy thereof on the notice board of the village chavadi or at any other conspicuous place in the village and by beat of torn tom in the village. It is contended that the record produced by the Govern

Click Here to Read the rest of this document